United States v. Kyle, No. 12-10208 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to 450 months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued that his guilty plea and sentence must be set aside because the district court impermissibly and prejudicially participated in his plea negotiations. The court followed United States v. Davila and reviewed the district court's alleged violation of Rule 11(c)(1) in light of the prejudice inquiry required. The court found that the district court participated in the parties' plea discussions by prematurely committing itself to a sentence of a specific severity and the district court's participation prejudiced defendant. Accordingly, the court held that the plea must be vacated and the appeal remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated a guilty plea and sentence, and remanded with instructions for reassignment to a different judge, in a case in which the defendant argued that the district court prejudicially participated in his plea negotiations in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1). Because the defendant can satisfy the plain-error standard of review, the panel assumed without deciding that plain error review is the proper standard for violations of Rule 11(c)(1). The panel joined other circuits in holding that when a court goes beyond providing reasons for rejecting the plea agreement presented, and comments on the hypothetical agreements it would or would not accept, it crosses over the line established by Rule 11 and becomes involved in the negotiations. Following United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013), by reviewing the full record to determine the impact of the alleged violation on the decision to plead guilty, the panel held that the district court participated in the parties’ plea discussions by prematurely committing itself to a sentence of a specific severity, and that the district court’s participation prejudiced the defendant, where there was a reasonable probability that he would not have agreed to the terms of the second plea agreement absent the district court’s remarks. The panel believed that the appearance of justice will be best served by remanding to a different judge.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.